The ferrari was not slow at all. I think it was a notch quicker than the Lotus on average but I have to admit Red Bull and Mclaren were in a league of their own in terms of pure pace. Mclaren were let down big time by their reliability issues though.

Actually, Ferrari was one of the best overall packages out there on the grid if we also take into account consistency, wet performance and ease of overtaking.. It was mostly as quick as the Lotus in qualifying but it was a much much better car than the Lotus during the race because of its blistering straight line speed and wet weather performance.

So, all in all, I think it was the second best package out there after RBR and that is exactly how they stand at the end of 2012.

HOW MANY TIMES IN TOP FOUR IN QUALIFYING:-----MW---SV---FM---FA1st---1x---6x---0x---2x2nd---5x---2x---0x---0x3rd---4x---3x---1x---2x4th---2x---2x---0x---1xTOT--12---13---1----5-

It's not exactly a myth that the Ferrari was slow. Not Minardi-slow of course but for a car that could challenge for the title it was slow. It never had the raw pace to challenge the Red Bull consistently. Both of Alonso's pole positions were achieved in wet qualifyings, and apart from those he only qualified in third place twice and in fourth place once. Massa fared even worse, only once did he qualify in the top four, with a third place in Monza qualifying.

EDIT: These are qualifying numbers, not eventual grid positions which were sometimes effected by grid penalties.

The Ferrari has/had a known problem with their DRS which affected their qualifying performance, but ultimately didn't matter in the race. Basically (at least as I understand it), their DRS system does not close fast enough, therefore they can suffer during qualifying when they use it throughout the lap, and that period of instability as the DRS closes is crucial when setting a qualifying lap time. However, during the race, this was not a roblem as the DRS is only used infrequently.

From what I understand, the Ferrari is not exactly a slow car but a difficult one to drive. But that's where Alonso's abilities come into play. He just drive whatever he gets, understeer, oversteer, and drives it fast. Unlike, for instance, Button or Kimi that need a car that suits their driving style.

In my opinion, it's difficult to dispute that the Ferrari was on average slower than the McLarens and the Red Bulls, and that Fernie did an excellent job under the circumstances. The Ferrari was certainly much slower in qualifying, made fantastic starts to recover about 2-3 of the places lost then, and was (on average) a shade slower than the McLarens (and the Red Bulls in the 2nd half of the season) in the race.

However, Fernando almost clinching the title with an overall slower car is not entirely unprecedented. Upon examination of the '82 and '83 seasons, it can be seen that Keke Rosberg and Nelson Piquet did win the title in cars which ended up 4th and 3rd in the constructors championships. And the situations of those years is somewhat similar to what we had in 2012 - several drivers and teams capable of winning races on their day, with the quicker cars suffering from a greater volatility of form, and in the end, the most consistent driver in the most reliable car clinched the drivers' crown. The winning drivers also had teammates who never really competed with them. Even in 2003, Kimi nearly pipped Schumi to the title in what was a heavily upgraded 2002-spec McLaren by finishing 2nd in several races and recording just one win. The fastest car on any particular weekend was either the Ferrari or the BMW-Williams, but the Kimi/McLaren package was the most consistent. Ironically, on the one weekend where McLaren looked the fastest in that year, Kimi retired from the lead due to mechanical problems and that probably cost him the title.

What I'm saying, is that Alonso nearly clinching the title in a slower car is not as heroic as some are making it out to be. Clearly, he did a fantastic job and perhaps no other driver on the present grid would have done the same (well, except Kimi, based on my example), but the unique circumstances also played a role in keeping him competitive. In most recent F1 seasons, we have seen 2 dominant teams with de facto #1 drivers who would win 13-14 races between them - in such a situation, a driver for the 3rd-best car has no chance of winning the title. But when the spoils of victory are shared as evenly as they have been in 2010 and 2012, the consistent and reliable but not-as-fast driver/team package is in with a shout. Note that Kimi also finished ahead of both McLarens, one Red Bull and one Ferrari.

From what I understand, the Ferrari is not exactly a slow car but a difficult one to drive. But that's where Alonso's abilities come into play. He just drive whatever he gets, understeer, oversteer, and drives it fast. Unlike, for instance, Button or Kimi that need a car that suits their driving style.

thats bs. Every driver need a car to suit them. Dont hype Alonso up, he's no different. Reason why he didnt struggle as much as felipe did this season is due to the car was tailor made for Nando. From what i saw in onboard video so far, Fernando definately prefer an understeer behavior car in term of balance.

everyone claim lewis can drive any car

but in suzuka, when suspension issues cause the car to understeer too much, he slump as well.

This year the E20 wasnt built to suit Kimi, couple with imperfect steering setup for his driving style....he cope with it and brought it home 3rd overall. Get ur facts right, general statement without fact is pure bs.

From what I understand, the Ferrari is not exactly a slow car but a difficult one to drive. But that's where Alonso's abilities come into play. He just drive whatever he gets, understeer, oversteer, and drives it fast. Unlike, for instance, Button or Kimi that need a car that suits their driving style.

thats bs. Every driver need a car to suit them. Dont hype Alonso up, he's no different. Reason why he didnt struggle as much as felipe did this season is due to the car was tailor made for Nando. From what i saw in onboard video so far, Fernando definately prefer an understeer behavior car in term of balance.

everyone claim lewis can drive any car

but in suzuka, when suspension issues cause the car to understeer too much, he slump as well.

This year the E20 wasnt built to suit Kimi, couple with imperfect steering setup for his driving style....he cope with it and brought it home 3rd overall. Get ur facts right, general statement without fact is pure bs.

The whole cars are built for one driver is Bs. The designers use their simulation and models to design the fastest possible car. Then once it's made. It can be fine tuned a little for your style.

I realize that this guy doesn't know anything, or at least will be made to feel that way by the time some of you have set him straight, however, it seems as though his view of the Ferrari and of Alonso's performance differ just a bit with the vast knowledge we have seen here in the forum for several months now...

"Equipped with a car called one of the worst Ferrari creations in history..."

Now that article may be a bit dramatic, but to those who have been claiming for weeks that the Ferrari is not and has not been slow/difficult/second tier.... perhaps you are more fearful of Alonso getting credit than you are realistic about the Ferrari F1 car of 2012.

It has seldom been the fastest, it has not qualifyied well putting it in an almost constant catch-up mode, nor has it had consistent front of the pack race pace. What it has had has been reliability, excellent strategy & teamwork, and some excellent driving to offset the weaknesses... to a degree. If most every knowledgeable source in F1 media can see it, why are some of you having such a difficult time and what do you know that they do not?

The assumption that something is published automatically makes it credible, or even more credible, than a person's opinion on a forum is something that irks me.

Publications have agendas of their own, whether it is to increase readership or appeal to particular advertisers. So articles are not necessarily any more objective or knowledgeable than the average person's.

Moreover, just because an individual is published does not say anything to their knowledge or objectivity. With regard to knowledge, obviously there is a greater chance that someone who is published has some, but I wouldn't just assume it and, rather, would be checking their credentials. So, for example, yes, I'd read something from Martin Brundle or Jonathan Noble knowing they have knowledge, but I wouldn't pay much attention to Greg Rust (an Aussie guy). The issue of objectivity is something else entirely and particularly relevant when it comes to articles that are by their very nature opinions, which is applicable to driver performance (as opposed to how a technical component of a car operates). And in that regard I don't take any opinion as gospel, whether it's Stewart, Lauda, Brundle, Allen or anyone.

This is all particularly the case in the modern world. 20 years ago journalists and those published generally did have access to information and insight that the general public didn't. But now, with the internet for information, sharing opinions and video media availability and also greater ease of travel that is not necessarily the case.

Personally there are opinions from people on here that I have more time for than ANY F1 commentator or journalist. And the main reason for that is that because they put forward their thoughts frequently I have been able to judge them both knowledgeable AND objective.